
Kansas Board of Regents: No Child Left Behind grant
![]()
|
Leadership: |
|
| Mara Alagic, WSU | YEAR ONE |
| Mary Krehbiel, USD 259 | YEAR TWO |
| Diana Palenz, WSU | YEAR THREE |
| Teachers-participants |
|
![]() |
| BRIDGES exploring Exploration Place |
| Project details |
SUMMER INSTITUTE:
Modeling Our World |
August Workshop | September Workshop |
| Information Form | Reports/presentations | Photo Gallery | What next? |
| DAY 1 | DAY 2 | DAY 3 | DAY 4 | DAY 5 |
| Parking; Enrolment |
Discuss briefly Lesson 2 (HW) |
Unit 3 Landsat (Geom) - lenses, maps, meter sticks, view tubes) | Discuss HW: activities 6 and 7 | Unit 2: Codes Discuss briefly HW: Lesson 1(Unit 2) |
| Mixed groups | ||||
| Information Form | NOTE: Run-off diagram p.18-19 |
Unit 3 Lesson 1: Concepts: Scale change, scientific notation, significant digits, unit conversion |
Lesson 4 Activity 7: Modular arithmetic (old magazines) |
Lesson 2 p64: #1-9 (chart) p66: #2 (lightly) table p68 |
| Surveys | ||||
| Get acquainted: Sit on your teacher hat! | graph, network, vertices, edges | Lesson 4 Activity 8: Frequency distrib. | ||
|
Book Search (guide) |
Matrices - p24 definition, dimensions, operations, multiplication |
Activity 1 |
Lesson 5: (TI83) Tables & Functions Transformations Distributive property
|
Activity 3: #3 starts graphs - graph paper, rulers - do it "lightly" |
|
Why BRIDGES? (computer, proj.) |
Activity 2 |
|||
|
Unit 1: Elections Video: Watch and fill out the form |
Multiplying matrices: Group I -using TI83 |
Activity 3 |
Lesson 5: Activities #9 & #10 (split) | Activity 4: TI 83 - do most of it |
|
Elections: Start chart of methods of elections and flaws in each: Lesson 1, activity 1, p.5 |
Multiplying matrices: Group II spreadsheets |
Lesson 2: Dilation, precise measurement |
More matrices (TI83) | Lesson 3 Activity 5: Function Stretch cipher p 89; |
| Divide so each group does one of: #1-3, 4-7, 8-9 (p7-9) | Multiplying matrices: Group III paper-pencil |
Lesson 4 &5 - only some parts |
Reports (TI83) | p90 #15 piece-wise function |
|
#10-11 (everybody) |
Assign groups to report on other election methods | Planning time | Unit 3—Landsat | |
| Mock election (using computer) | ||||
|
HW: Read Lesson 2 - advantages and disadvantages; diagrams to represent elections; Look at new KS teacher standards |
HW: Read Unit 2 Lesson 1 |
read activities:
6 and 7 |
Read?? | |
| DAY 6 | DAY 7 | DAY 8 | DAY 9 | DAY 10 |
| UNIT 5 | UNIT 6 | |||
| Rae: Graphing calculators | Rae: Graphing calculators | Mary, David & Molly: Lessons 1 & 2 |
Scott: L3 Ken: L 4 Jody: L5 Carla: FLARE; FLARE&BLAST (L 6) |
Karin: L2 Lorrie: Intro + L1 Ed: L2 Sandy: Summary |
| Planning time | Planning time | Planning time | Photo Gallery | |
| Homework | ||||
| DAY 11 | DAY 12 | DAY 13 | DAY 14 | DAY 15 |
| UNIT 6: Modeling growth and decay | UNIT 7 |
Visit to
Exploration Place www.exploration.org MATHEMATICS in Exploration Place |
UNIT 7 | |
|
Paula: Act 7 L4 Sheryl: Act 7 L4 Julie: Act 7 L4 Keith: Act4 L 3 |
Anya: L 1 Act 1 Wendi: L1 Act 2 Tanya: L2 Act 4 Betty: L2 Act 3 |
Carrie: Olline: Test effectivess Lori: Zip around |
John Diana Mara
|
|
| calculators? | ||||
| Homework | ||||
|
DAILY
REFLECTION: |
Grant Title:
Toshiba’s Grade 7-12 Grant Program
Organization: The Toshiba America Foundation
Deadline:
August 1, 2003
The Toshiba America Foundation funds teacher-planned and -led programs, projects, and activities that aim to improve science and mathematics teaching. While Toshiba accepts applications for grants under $5,000 year-round, applications for grants of $5,000 or more are reviewed only twice per year. Examples of previous funded projects include seventh-grade students learning to use microscopes while exploring real medical case studies and high school students using scientific instruments to test water quality. Before submitting a completed proposal, teachers are encouraged to contact the foundation to discuss their ideas.
Contact:
n/a
(212) 596-0616 or (212) 596-0667
n/a
http://www.toshiba.com/taf
http://target.com/common/page.jhtml?content=target_cg_grant_guidelines
November 8 (8:30 – 12:00)
Rolling rectangles: Which one holds more?
The King’s chessboard: Exploring growth
The King's chessboard: Extensions
Future work
Did you know that lunar eclipse might be visible tonight? (Thanks Peter)
December 13 (8:30 – 11:00) Corbin 251
Mathematical eyes on real-life stories
Geometry: A HOLIDAY ORNAMENT (8:30 - 8:45)
Standards In Practice:
What did we learn last time?
Exploring growth and decay
Should we” move on” or take more time for mastery?
Blackboard -
January 31 (8:30 – 12:00) Corbin 251
Learning and Assessment: What is the relationship? What do they have in common?
March 6 (8:30 – 12:00)
What did
we do in our classrooms so far?
April 24 (8:30 – 12:00)
Dynamic geometry
June 1 – June 17 (8:00 – 11:30)
CI 755W Investigations in Mathematics (section #06140)
Grant-sponsored activities, teachers’ contributions and resources from Years One & Two are available at the web site http://education.wichita.edu/alagic/bridges/BRIDGES.htm. Formative assessment of data from Years One and Two provides direction for adjustments to initial proposal for Year Three. Final data from Year Two are still being collected.
All participants continue to be involved in (a) decision-making about the specific mathematics content to be delivered based on their individual needs and needs of their students, (b) on-line sharing of "what works" and reflecting on teaching and learning mathematics, and (c) university experiences (Brown & Palinscar, 1989; Haycock, 1998; Smith, 2001).
Summary of subject content: BRIDGES plan is being refined on an ongoing basis, based on formative assessments, to improve teacher quality and student achievement, with a focus on the deep understanding of mathematics content. The initial selection of content was made based on
(a) the School Improvement Plans of six partner middle schools, and
(b) state/local mathematics content and assessment standards and (c) teacher licensure standards. The third year focus is on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools (e.g., dynamic geometry, spreadsheets) that support deeper understanding of mathematics. Problem solving, related process standards, and real life applications continue to be threaded throughout all activities. Modeling Our World: Real Problems, Real Life, Real Math (COMAP and W. H. Freeman Publishing) will continue to be used to assist teachers in making connections between (a) mathematics contents in grades 6-8, (b) high school mathematics content, (c) college-level mathematics content, and (d) real-world applications. (Smith, 2001; Schifter & Fosnot, 1993).
BRIDGES continues to facilitate effective strategies that support standards-based teaching, such as inquiry- and problem-based learning to improve instructional practices and consequently student achievement (Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001).
The Technology Plan: Guided by the NCTM (2000) Technology principle and other relevant scientifically based research about teacher quality in the technology-oriented environment (Cafolla & Knee, 1995; Demana & Waits, 1990; Alagic & Langrall, 2002; Alagic, 2002), we continue to build technology expertise. Teachers continue to express particular interest in deeper understanding of how ICT tools are transforming teaching and learning mathematics. Teachers’ interests in these tools require the BRIDGES to be well informed about (a) scientifically based research about utilization of ICT in mathematics, and (b) careful differentiation of instruction both in BRIDGES activities and participants’ classrooms.
Teacher involvement in planning and delivery of the grant is essential. A few teachers that participated in the first two years of activities will help with planning and co-facilitate some of the activities (Paula Levine-Fry, Ed Mankoski, Julie White, and Scott Dellinger).
Management Plan: Mara Alagic, Project Director will be responsible for coordination of all project activities. The Leadership Team will include Mary Krehbiel, Co-PI (mathematics curriculum specialist and staff-development facilitator for the WPS), Diana Palenz, Co-PI (PhD in mathematics, WSU), and middle school mathematics teachers and administrators: Paula Levine-Fry (Curtis), Ed Mankoski (Mead), Julie White (Allison), Molly Jacobi (Curtis), Scott Dellinger (Pleasant Valley).
Project Advisors will be Sue Neal (mathematics educator with extensive public school and higher education experience) and Dr. John Hutchinson (Professor of Mathematics, Executive Director of the Kansas Mathematics and Science Coalition). They will have an expert-advisory role in terms of mathematics content selection and delivery during the BRIDGES implementation.
Timeline:
Summer 2005: The participants will be involved in one week of half-day classes combined with online activities with intensive problem-based learning strategies in selected areas of mathematics.
August 8-12, 1:00 -3:00
Fall 2005: Saturday, September 24, 2005, 9 to 12 in the morning Friday, October 21, 2005, 4 to 7 in the afternoon --Wilbur hosting
o Facilitate weekend workshops on problem-based learning in selected areas of mathematics, and
o Continue to nurture online communication network for sharing and assessing knowledge and resources, and conduct online discussion group (biweekly),
o Edit and post a monthly online BRIDGES newsletter,
Spring 2006:
o Determine progress of the project for necessary adjustments
o Continue all activities as defined for the fall 2005 (1 hour graduate credit available)
o Facilitate action research training
Sustainability: The third year will solidify our BRIDGES community of learners with an expectation to continue networking after the end of the grant. Long term goals are to nurture highly qualified teachers’ skills by facilitating opportunities to (a) expand mathematical content knowledge, (b) follow changes in technology and (c) keep informed about both best practice and research based pedagogical strategies.
References
Alagic, M. (2002). Participatory cognitive apprenticeship: Teachers learning mathematics in the technology-based environment. Proceedings of the SITE 2002--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Vol.2002, Issue 1, pp. 616-617.
Alagic, M. & Langrall, R. (2002). Differentiating mathematics instruction through technology: Deliberations about mapping personalized learning. In M. Borovcnik, & H. Kautschitsch, (Eds.) Technology in Mathematics Teaching, Proceedings of ICTMT5 in Klagenfurt 2001. Schriftenreiche Didactik Der Mathematik, Band 25 (pp.33-36).
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cafolla, R., & Knee, R. (1995). Factors limiting technology integration in education: The leadership gap. Paper presented at the SITE95 - Sixth Annual Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), San Antonio, NM.
Demana, F., & Waits, B. K. (1990). Enhancing mathematics teaching and learning through technology. In T. J. Cooney, & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.), Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s, 1990 yearbook of the national council of teachers of mathematics (pp. 212-222). Reston, VA: National council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school math. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Schifter, D., & Fosnot, C.T. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of teachers meeting the challenge of reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Smith, M. S. (2001). Practice-based professional development for teachers of mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
| August 8-11: WSU | |
|
|
|
August 9
|
Zome tool - continuing with constructing different
structures 3d shapes -
Scrambled Proofs (2 handouts)
|
|
August 10
|
Reflection:
Old-fashioned geometry Jim Fay's "Love and Logic" Annual Wichita Conference - Wendi and Nora Nine Essential Skills for the Love and Logic Classroom
Check the Love and Logic Institute website for more information: www.loveandlogic.com |
|
August 11
|
|
|
September 24, 9:00 – 12:00 |
|
i. In a middle school or consumer mathematics class, students take the role of a state official preparing a statistical report on the state, choosing a topic such as education. The end product can be a presentation with graphs and written descriptions of significant findings. Consider collaborating with a language arts or social studies teacher for this project. ii. In a high school geometry class, students take the role of an architect and design a shopping mall. Students research the design of malls and the feasible sizes for various types of stores. The end product can be a brochure, poster, or webpage presenting the design to a panel of adults or students serving as a city-planning board. e. Invention Design a new product, service, technology or gadget! This is also one of the most popular projects in elementary and middle schools.
|
|
| October 21: Wilbur | |
|
(1) Sandy: Glencoe.com (2) Diana: Slides, Flips and Turns OR Translations, Reflections and Rotations a. Translation of an object is determined with a vector (magnitude/distance and direction) b. Reflection of an object is determined with a line of reflection; line can be outside the object but it can also be passing through the object of c. Rotation of an object is determined by center of rotation and angle of rotation; center can be on the object and outside of the object (3) Nora: Geometry Graphic Design Project – a. (4) Scott: Clickers a. How to create questions i. Import from exam view ii. Add test, then add questions, import pics & graphs b. Using CPS reports to answer “What do we do when they don’t learn it?” i. Using reports to make small groups for re-teaching ii. Item analysis c. How to make fast-grades off of the KAN-ED website i. Using KAN-Ed to create KMA look alike assessments d. How to print off “corrections” for students to make from any test they have done
Thanks Wilbur |
|
Thanks Curtis |
|
| February 24: WSU | |
|
|
|
|
|
| March | |
| April 28: Adrian's 4:30 - 6:30 (21st and Rock) | |
| January 2006 | |||
![]() |
These pages are always under construction: I am trying to keep them up-to-date with my activities :) Questions and/or comments are welcome! |
Maintained by:
Mara Alagic |